Multi-Step Upgrades (e.g., OpenZeppelin's UUPSUpgradeable) excel at gas efficiency and modularity because upgrade logic is stored in the contract itself, not a proxy. This reduces deployment costs and allows for the removal of upgradeability entirely in a final version. For example, a UUPS implementation can save ~2,700 gas per call compared to the traditional Transparent Proxy pattern, a critical metric for high-frequency DeFi protocols like Aave or Compound that prioritize operational cost.
LABS
Comparisons
Multi-Step Upgrades vs Atomic Upgrades
A technical analysis comparing complex, multi-step upgrade processes against single-transaction atomic upgrades. This guide examines the security implications, governance overhead, and operational complexity for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Critical Choice in Contract Evolution
A foundational comparison of two dominant strategies for smart contract upgrades, framed by their inherent trade-offs between control and safety.
Atomic Upgrades (via the Transparent Proxy Pattern) take a different approach by separating the proxy admin from the logic contract. This results in a critical trade-off: superior security and clear administrative separation at the cost of higher gas overhead. The proxy admin acts as a single, managed upgrade gatekeeper, preventing accidental implementation collisions—a model trusted by foundational protocols like Uniswap V3, which values administrative safety and audit clarity over marginal gas savings.
The key trade-off: If your priority is long-term gas optimization, lean deployments, and eventual immutability, choose Multi-Step (UUPS). If you prioritize maximum administrative safety, clear role separation, and are less sensitive to upfront gas costs, choose Atomic (Transparent Proxy). The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you view the upgrade mechanism as a permanent system feature or a temporary tool to be discarded.
tldr-summary
Multi-Step vs. Atomic Upgrades
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A quick scan of the core architectural trade-offs between gradual and all-or-nothing upgrade strategies.
01
Multi-Step Upgrade Pros
Progressive Risk Mitigation: Enables phased testing and validation (e.g., deploying a new validator client before activating a hard fork). This matters for high-value, complex ecosystems like Ethereum's Shanghai or Dencun upgrades, where a single bug could impact billions in TVL.
02
Multi-Step Upgrade Cons
Operational Complexity: Requires precise coordination and longer timelines across node operators. This matters for smaller teams or fast-moving L2s where rapid iteration is critical, as seen in the multi-week orchestration needed for Cosmos SDK chain parameter changes.
03
Atomic Upgrade Pros
Deterministic Simplicity: The entire state transition is applied in a single block (e.g., Solana's epoch boundary upgrades). This matters for high-throughput chains and DeFi protocols like Serum, where minimizing upgrade windows and avoiding inconsistent intermediate states is paramount.
04
Atomic Upgrade Cons
All-or-Nothing Risk: A single bug in the upgrade bundle can halt the chain, requiring a coordinated rollback. This matters for permissionless networks with diverse client implementations where a failed atomic upgrade could trigger a chain split, as historically risked in early Bitcoin hard forks.
BLOCKCHAIN UPGRADE STRATEGIES
Feature Comparison: Multi-Step vs Atomic Upgrades
A technical comparison of governance and execution models for protocol upgrades.
| Metric / Feature | Multi-Step Upgrades | Atomic Upgrades |
|---|---|---|
Governance Complexity | High (Multiple Votes) | Low (Single Proposal) |
Deployment Risk | Distributed (Phased) | All-or-Nothing |
Rollback Capability | ||
Typical Time to Activation | 2-4 weeks | < 1 week |
Example Protocols | Ethereum, Cosmos | Solana, Aptos |
Smart Contract Migration | Manual (Step-by-Step) | Atomic (In-Place) |
Consensus Change Support |
pros-cons-a
ATOMIC VS. MULTI-STEP UPGRADES
Pros and Cons: Multi-Step Upgrades
Key strengths and trade-offs for two critical blockchain governance models.
01
Atomic Upgrade Pros
Instant, All-or-Nothing Execution: The entire upgrade activates in a single block. This eliminates the risk of a chain split and ensures deterministic state transitions, as seen in Solana's Sealevel runtime. This matters for protocols requiring absolute consensus on new features or security patches.
0
Split Risk
02
Atomic Upgrade Cons
High Coordination & Binary Risk: Requires near-unanimous validator adoption instantly. Failed upgrades can halt the chain. This creates a single point of failure and is less forgiving for complex changes, as evidenced by early Ethereum hard forks that required emergency intervention.
High
Coordination Cost
03
Multi-Step Upgrade Pros
Phased, Low-Risk Deployment: Enables progressive activation (e.g., Cosmos SDK's governance proposals with deposit and voting periods). Allows for bug detection in live, non-critical environments and smoother migrations of complex systems like Ethereum's Beacon Chain merge.
Gradual
Risk Mitigation
04
Multi-Step Upgrade Cons
Extended Complexity & State Fragmentation: The network operates in a transitional state, potentially for weeks. This can lead to temporary incompatibilities between nodes and smart contracts, increasing operational overhead for dApp teams, as seen during multi-phase EIP rollouts.
High
Operational Overhead
pros-cons-b
Multi-Step vs. Atomic
Pros and Cons: Atomic Upgrades
Key architectural trade-offs for protocol upgrades, from governance to execution risk.
01
Multi-Step Upgrade: Governance Flexibility
Decoupled governance and execution: Allows for community signaling (e.g., Snapshot votes) and multi-sig approvals before final on-chain execution. This matters for highly decentralized protocols like Uniswap or Compound, where changes require extensive deliberation.
02
Multi-Step Upgrade: Risk Mitigation
Graceful failure recovery: If a governance vote fails or a bug is discovered mid-process, the upgrade can be halted. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols managing billions in TVL, where a faulty atomic upgrade could be catastrophic.
03
Multi-Step Upgrade: Implementation Overhead
Complex coordination burden: Requires multiple transactions across days or weeks, increasing operational overhead and creating execution lag. This matters for rapidly iterating L2s or appchains that need to deploy fixes quickly in response to exploits.
04
Multi-Step Upgrade: Forking Risk
Prolonged state of uncertainty: The extended timeline can lead to community division and increase the likelihood of a contentious chain fork. This matters for socially critical base layers like Ethereum mainnet, where consensus stability is paramount.
05
Atomic Upgrade: Instant State Synchronization
All-or-nothing execution: The entire upgrade bundle (logic, storage, dependencies) is applied in a single block. This matters for Cosmos SDK or Substrate-based chains, enabling seamless runtime upgrades without chain halts or complex migration scripts.
06
Atomic Upgrade: Developer Velocity
Eliminates migration pain: Developers can push new features (e.g., new token standards, fee mechanics) without requiring user action. This matters for consumer-facing dApps and gaming protocols where user experience and seamless updates are critical.
07
Atomic Upgrade: Centralization Vector
Power concentrated in upgrade keys: Often relies on a privileged set of validators or a foundation multi-sig for instant execution. This matters for newer L1s or appchains where the trade-off for speed may compromise credible neutrality in the short term.
08
Atomic Upgrade: Irreversible Errors
No rollback mechanism: A bug in the upgrade code is immediately live across the entire network. This matters for all protocols, requiring extreme rigor in testing (e.g., comprehensive testnets, audit cycles, and simulation tools like Tenderly).
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each: A Decision Framework
Multi-Step Upgrades for Architects
Verdict: The default for complex, high-stakes protocol evolution. Strengths: Enables phased rollouts (e.g., feature flag activation, staged migrations) and comprehensive community/governance signaling between steps. This is critical for major consensus changes or tokenomics overhauls. Ethereum's Shanghai/Capella upgrade, which separated execution and consensus layer withdrawals, is a canonical example of managing risk through discrete phases. Trade-off: Introduces protocol state complexity and requires meticulous coordination tools like OpenZeppelin Defender for upgrade scheduling.
Atomic Upgrades for Architects
Verdict: Ideal for modular systems and rapid iteration. Strengths: Simplifies state management by applying all changes in a single, all-or-nothing block. Perfect for Cosmos SDK or Substrate-based chains, where the entire application logic can be swapped atomically. Enables faster iteration for L2s and appchains where governance is centralized or highly agile. Trade-off: Demands exhaustive pre-upgrade testing (e.g., on testnets like Sepolia or Chiado) as rollback is impossible.
UPGRADE STRATEGIES
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation Patterns
Choosing between multi-step and atomic upgrade patterns is a foundational architectural decision impacting protocol security, governance, and operational complexity. This section breaks down the key trade-offs for engineering leaders.
Atomic upgrades are generally considered more secure for the final state. They eliminate the risk window where a protocol exists in a partially upgraded, potentially vulnerable state. However, multi-step upgrades (like OpenZeppelin's TransparentUpgradeableProxy) allow for phased testing and rollback at each stage, reducing the blast radius of a bug. The security trade-off is between a single, all-or-nothing risk (atomic) and the prolonged exposure of intermediate states (multi-step).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between multi-step and atomic upgrades is a fundamental architectural decision with profound implications for protocol governance, security, and user experience.
Multi-Step Upgrades excel at risk mitigation and community governance because they decouple proposal, approval, and execution phases. This allows for extensive on-chain signaling, security audits, and user preparation between steps, significantly reducing the chance of a catastrophic failure. For example, major protocols like Uniswap and Compound use timelocks and governance votes, providing a multi-week window for the community to react to proposals, a critical defense against governance attacks.
Atomic Upgrades take a different approach by bundling all logic and state changes into a single, all-or-nothing transaction. This results in superior execution atomicity and developer ergonomics for complex, interdependent changes, but introduces a higher-stakes governance model. Protocols like dYdX v4 migrating to its own Cosmos appchain or certain Optimism Bedrock upgrades leverage atomicity to ensure a clean, synchronized state transition, avoiding the "half-upgraded" system risks inherent in phased rollouts.
**The key trade-off is between deliberate safety and operational agility. If your priority is maximizing decentralization, minimizing upgrade risk, and building with established Ethereum tooling (OpenZeppelin Governor, Tally), choose Multi-Step Upgrades. If you prioritize seamless, complex state migrations, faster iteration cycles, and have a highly coordinated validator set or a more permissioned environment, choose Atomic Upgrades. For most public, value-heavy DeFi protocols, the multi-step model's safety is non-negotiable, while appchains and new L2s may opt for atomicity to accelerate development.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall